Posted by Scott Mendelson in Writer's Corner at 10:26 AM
PST
“The news is still big, it’s the newspapers that got small.”
The merits of the essay linked below speaks for itself. As for film criticism, the future clearly lies with blogs and sites like this, where quality prose can breathe and live and find whatever readers find it worthy. But it is a shame that the tradition of the newspaper film critic, the very thing that aspired me to first love movies, has so quickly been destroyed in a little under two years. He is not the first person to sound the alarm, but this is the one that most people will read… the sound of doom from our most trusted film critic.
Posted by Scott Mendelson in Writer's Corner at 12:31 PM
PST
Note - I will attempt to discuss Twilight’s $71 million opening weekend, as well as the domestic collapse of 007 and the under performance of Bolt) when final figures are released tomorrow.
This will be an essay regarding the alleged political and social undercurrents of the first Twilight movie (for a normal review, go here), and how whether it matters in judging the film. For the record, I have not read the books and I know very little about what happens in the later stories. I will be only taking stock of the content of the first film. I will be dealing with (alleged) symbolic as well as literal interpretations of onscreen events.
Taken as a movie and taken at face value, Twilight is simply a romantic drama involving a young girl and a brooding but handsome vampire (who looks and acts her age, but is actually nearly 100 years old). Like any worldwide phenomenon, the original books (and thus this first movie) have been dissected by the page. Most of the criticisms are in the vein of ‘it’s sexist’ or ‘it’s anti-feminist’, or ‘it celebrates the oppressive patriarchy’. Do these charges apply purely to the first movie? And if they do, is it intentional, or merely an inevitable byproduct of the story that the author and filmmakers wanted to tell?
Much has been made of the author Stephanie Meyer’s Mormon religious leanings, but the movie’s symbolism is generic enough to apply to many religious or cultural dogmas, since all too many of them treat sexuality, especially female sexuality, as something dangerous and to be kept locked up. Bella’s inherent desire to ‘be’ with Edward at all costs, as well as Edward’s constant attempts to brush her away, have disturbing implications, since it is the girl’s (metaphorical) sexual awakening that leads Edward to place her family and his family in jeopardy. One could argue that this is simply a double standard, that far more films treat the male as the aggressor and the female as the one who must ward off his advances. Why should we decry a movie that simply reverses the formula? The issue is the fact that, although Bella is the aggressor, it is still Edward who presents the danger. Thus we have a situation of Edward being dangerous to Bella, yet the primary responsibility to prevent that danger falls in Bella’s hands, not Edward’s.
Further muddying the waters is the fact that the ‘danger’ that does present itself is not from Edward, but from a third party threat from a different vampire. James is presented in the film as a standard variety psychopath, who just happens to be a vampire. If the story did not involve the supernatural, would Bella really be seen as responsible for drawing the prurient interest of (for example) Edward’s old college buddy who happens to be a rape-minded murderer? While most of the movie treats vampirism as a metaphor for consensual sex, the climax does revert back to the vampirism equals rape metaphor that usually exists in such fiction. Thus we are dangerously close to having a film where Bella’s romantic advances toward Edward are seen as responsible for a third party taking an interest in (metaphorically) raping and (literally) killing her.
The problem, and the key to understanding why the story is offensive to some people, is that the core of the romantic drama revolves around two contradictory and troubling connotations. On one hand, Edward keeps telling Bella that he cannot control himself around her, that she is putting herself in danger. Thus the sexual wiles of Bella is endangering all around her, because Edward may or may not be able to control his own lethal desires. But, wait, he is also protective of her, and the movie seems to imply (by her constant run-ins with lethal danger from outside forces) that she cannot take care of herself and must be guarded and watched at all times. Edward states both of these notions outright during the course of the movie.
There are two main classic cultural myths of females, two false assumptions that have been used as the definitive excuses to subjugate and disenfranchise women for centuries in all manner of societies. The first is that women are devious and reckless creatures who tempt men who can’t control themselves. As a result of these fiendish seducers, the weak but noble men do all manner of vice and corruption, deeds that without the temptation of the women they would not have even considered. But, wait, they are also weak-willed and emotionally fragile creatures that cannot care for themselves and must be protected from peril and shielded from emotional complication (‘the fairer sex’). Whether accidentally or intentionally, Twilight revolves around both stereotypes.
Ok, so assuming that the narrative of Twilight is sexist and does play into classic myths that have excused female domination, does that make the film sexist, or merely the very sort of fantasy that it wants to be? As I discussed a few months back (when discussing Sex & The City: The Movie), the core elements of female fantasy is the idea of shirking responsibility, throwing caution to the wind, and living out all of your selfish desires without major consequences. Comparatively, the male escapist fantasy involves immature boys who man up just a little bit, take responsibility, and use their talents to save lives, make a difference, and win the girl without having to make any true concessions to their character and personality (think Iron Man).
In this archetypal female fantasy, the shy girl moves to a new school, completely unaware of how intelligent and attractive she is (for all the hubbub about how ‘dreamy’ Pattinson’s Edward is, Kristen Stewart’s Bella isn’t exactly Dawn Weiner* either). Without even trying, she gets hit on by every boy in the school (and, in one creepy scene, her father’s much older friend) and manages to draw the attention of the school hunk with absolutely no effort. He ignores everyone else in the school, but he takes a shining to her immediately. When the danger of this forbidden romance is exposed, Bella chooses puppy love over the safety of Edward’s family and her own family and pays no price for it (in fact, she gets to keep Edward and her friends and family).
And, let’s not forget, part of the point of fantasy is to indulge in that which is not (or, sometimes, what shouldn’t be so). In Twilight, the target demographic of young women gets to spend two hours in a prototypical female escape fantasy, and they can also make a choice to ignore the sociological undercurrents. They can choose to revel in the fairy tale stereotypes, and even play around with the female culture myths if they so desire**. Maybe the irony is that the female escapism genre involves allowing women to give into their most selfish possible instincts, while male escapism involves men ignoring their base instincts and striving to be better people in situations of great consequence. Actually, if you take the gender politics of Twilight and view them as a pure fantasy, then it actually makes the very real women who view the film look pretty good.
Scott Mendelson
* For the record, I am referencing the character of Dawn Weiner from Welcome To The Dollhouse, not the actress Heather Matarazzo, a talented and lovely actress who deserves much better work than ‘naked tortured chick’ in Hostel 2.
** Frankly, I was far more disturbed by Enchanted, which aimed its anti-feminist fairy-tale foolishness at a demographic far too young to separate the fantasy from the gender politics underneath the surface.
Twilight - $75 million. The hype for this one has been building for the last few months, with at least two Entertainment Weekly cover stories to boot. The books are a huge deal with the target demo (middle school and high school girls and, to a lesser extent, adult women) and this adaptation promises to be about as slavishly faithful as Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone. Of course, it’s not a coincidence that the upstart Summit Entertainment moved this one from December 12th to November 21st, following the rescheduling of a certain boy wizard. Summit desperately wants this to be as much ‘the next Harry Potter’ in the film world as the books are in the literary scene. Fun trivia - when I saw Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire (exactly three years ago this weekend), a huge chunk of the female audience loudly sighed/swooned when Cedric Diggory first appeared onscreen. How ironic that ‘the boy who lived’ is being directly challenged by a franchise starring Robert Pattinson, ‘the boy who died’.
A few things, however, will prevent this from reaching Harry Potter opening weekend heights (not that anyone is going to be disappointed with anything over $40 million). First of all, Summit is only opening on only 3200 screens. Second of all, unless you’re a big fan of the books or the subject matter, the film doesn’t look very exciting, more like a slightly better cast and produced version of The Covenant. Third of all, let’s face it, one of the big reasons that the film industry is such a male-dominated enterprise is that girls are usually more than happy to see ‘boy movies’ like Iron Man, but boys usually won’t go anywhere near ‘girl movies’ like Sex & The City. Basically, this is a textbook example of ‘female escapism‘. So, aside from any existing male fans of the books, the only male traffic is going to be from boyfriends (who can’t help but come up short in comparison to the seemingly perfect Edward), platonic friends who really want to get laid (it ain’t gonna happen… move on), and from pervy older men who want to scope out the stream of awkward, single, romantically inclined high school and middle school girls. If I score this weekend, my wife gets one ‘hot nerd’ at the next Comic Con (think Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory).
That $75 million could well be an underestimate, but I’m not willing to presume anything after the shocking under performance of High School Musical 3 (fine, it wasn’t going to open to $80 million - but to barely make $80 million total??). For the record, expect opening day front-loading on the scale of Sex & The City and XXX. Still, this is going to be a huge opening and if the fans are happy, expect a frighteningly small drop-off over the Thanksgiving weekend (what else are they going to see - Australia or Milk?).
Bolt - $45 million.
This is the third ‘not Pixar but not just Disney’ release in the last two years, and also their third 3D release. Chicken Little was atrocious while Meet The Robinsons was the best movie of 2007 (you heard me - go rent it and tell me I’m wrong). I’m guessing this one will be somewhere in the middle. The marketing has been mammoth per usual, and the cast is unfortunately more celebrity heavy than the recent Disney slate (good for marketing, but often bad for the movie). The reviews are surprisingly solid (84% so far), so expect this one to equal if not surpass the three-day take over the long Thanksgiving holiday. But seriously, go rent Meet The Robinsons… it’s good for the soul.
Quantum Of Solace - $34 million.
The word of mouth is decidedly mixed and the marketplace will be crowded, so expect an unusually large drop for this very fast-earning 007 picture. Still, even if the drop is 50% or more, it should level off over the next month as it becomes the safe second choice of casual moviegoers for the rest of the year.
I don’t usually do a ‘let’s rundown all the new trailers’, but there were several released just in the last week that are worth discussing. If you want to hear my thoughts on Star Trek, go here. Otherwise…
Watchmen - March 6th, 2009.
I may be in the minority, but I far prefer the first trailer released back in July. The visuals are pretty similar, but the dialogue snippets seem to suggest an on-the-nose adaptation, where a complicated and ‘messy’ narrative is condensed into simplistic terms (someone wants to destroy the world, so said ’someone’ starts killing off heroes so they can’t stop them). While it’s not Jackie Earle Haley’s fault that Rorschach’s voice sounds quite a bit like Christan Bale’s McGruff The Crime Bat voice, but both of them are uber-cheesy. And Those who have seen bits of the finished film claim it’s pretty faithful in content and tone to the original, so this may be a case of a trailer that makes a smart film look stupid (the 1997 sci-fi fable Gattaca was far smarter and more moving than the action-based trailer suggested).Besides, the visuals in the original graphic novel were pretty matter of fact. The story was pretty radical in its day, so the artwork was more low key as a balance. The comic book panels weren’t stylized or overly razzle-dazzly. If anything, the original story was a sober deconstruction of the pop-and sizzle/gee-whiz superhero stories of that era, a ‘real-world’ look at super heroics. Ironically, this slow-motion filled preview actually dilutes the seriousness of the material. In a world that has already given us The Dark Knight and Unbreakable, the pop-candy colors and splashy and stylized palette almost makes our beloved Watchmen seem campy. We can only hope that Zack Snyder has not tried to jazz up a story that at its core was a sad, mournful human tragedy.
Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince - July 17th, 2009
It seems like the second domestic trailer goes out of its way to counter balance the super-creepy Omen-ish teaser from July. This one is filled with lighter moments, bits of high adventure, and much more footage of our young heroes (I adore that ‘but I am the chosen one’ bit with Harry and Hermione). The climactic moments in the preview are presented as rousing and epic, rather than… well, no spoilers for those lucky enough to go in blind (as I’ve said before, the sixth book contains the most inspired plot twist of the whole series). One final note - I love the new, hard-charging percussion-heavy variation on the Harry Potter theme that plays at the trailer’s end.
Valkyrie - December 26th, 2008
Another solid trailer, emphasizing the ensemble cast and the dark thriller aspects of the film, rather than selling it purely as a Tom Cruise star vehicle. Although why the trailer labels Bryan Singer as the director of Superman Returns rather than X-Men, I can’t say (X-Men was far more liked and is much more of a team picture). Of course, the weirdest part of the trailer is the climactic action montage, which actually uses the ‘all twists revealed’ music from the climax of each Saw film. It’s certainly appropriate music for rising tension, but it may produce a giggle or two from those who recognize it.
The Day The Earth Stood Still December 12th, 2008
This trailer scores points in an unexpected fashion. The climax of the trailer seemingly displays pretty much every action beat the film seems to offer. Of course, close observers will note that most of the allegedly ‘wowser’ moments are just different angles on the giant glowing orb object. Thus, but inadvertently showing its hand, this new trailer offers hope that the sci-fi remake won’t be action-packed, but rather character and plot driven in a manner similar to the original. I’d all but guarantee that the few destruction set pieces on display are from one or two montages in the film. I did like the copious footage of Jon Hamm in the opening moments of the trailer, seemingly from the opening moments of the film. This suggests either that he’s not in the film that much but Fox wanted to highlight the rising star (just as the trailer for Catch Me If You Can made it seem like Jennifer Garner had a co-starring role), or that he dies at the conclusion of the first act.
Speaking of Fox, when the heck are we going to see a real (non-Comic Con) trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine? Unless they’re saving it for The Day The Earth Stood Still, I’m not sure what they’re waiting for.
Box Office Mojo posted their weekly MPAA rating updates yesterday. Not much to report. Two noteworthy items do pop out, though. The big news involves Marley & Me. The Jennifer Aniston/Owen Wilson romantic dramedy, that revolves around a troubled marriage and a dog, has acquired a PG (thematic material, some suggestive content and language). The only thing more rare than a live-action non-kid’s flick getting a G is a live-action non-kid’s flick getting a PG. Really, I can’t even remember the last adult drama/comedy that received a PG rating. Was the last one Contact, back in July 1997 (that shocked me too)? The PG is still used for family adventure films (Journey To The Center Of The Earth, Bedtime Stories), kid-centered dramas or musicals (Akeelah And The Bee, Hairspray) and cartoons (Bolt), but it’s use for live-action films aimed at adults is more or less nonexistent at this point. Heck, even Mamma Mia! somehow pulled off a PG-13, although content-wise it probably deserved a G (was the harsh rating just because of the insinuation that Streep slept around in her youth?). Come what may, good for Fox for not tossing in a gratuitous ‘F-word’ just to get the ‘harder’ PG-13.
The other newsworthy snippet? Australia opens in less than a week, and it only now acquired that PG-13 from the MPAA? I know the 165 minute film was rushing to finish, but this may be a record, at least for a film that wasn’t appealing a prior rating. Other minor bits include the R-rating for Underworld 3 (a prequel where Rhona Mitra fills in for Kate Beckinsale), a PG-13 for The Soloist (which has moved again, now slated for April 24th, right before the summer season starts), and a PG for Old Dogs (a family comedy with John Travolta and Robin Williams that was moved almost a full year - from March 2009 to Thanksgiving 2009). And that’s all that’s fit to print. Sorry for the rhyming in the post title, it couldn’t be helped.
I watched Goldfinger for the first time in several years the other day. It still holds up as a fun, well-paced, and entertaining 007 caper. But, there is one glaring problem that almost by itself puts it near the bottom of the Bond totem pole: James Bond is helpless and useless for most of the picture.A quick recap… James Bond spends the first half of the picture basically playing chicken with Auric Goldfinger, shenanigans that result in the violent murders of two young women (the Masterson sisters - one gets painted in gold and the other gets her neck broken by a flying derby). By the halfway point, James Bond has been captured by Mr. Goldfinger and spends nearly the entire rest of the film in enemy custody. While in Goldfinger’s grasp, his life is spared only because Goldfinger doesn’t call his bluff about outside knowledge of ‘Operation Grand Slam’. Bond learns the gruesome details of the plan, one that involves the mass slaughter of 60,000 people and the detonation of a nuclear bomb inside Fort Knox. But James Bond does not foil this plot. James Bond does not switch the nerve gas canisters to instead release harmless gas on the populace. Pussy Galore is the one who switches the canister and calls the CIA (Bond had tried to warn Felix Leiter, but his plan to smuggle a message out with a doomed mob boss failed). He does not deactivate the nuclear bomb, that is done by a nuclear expert and Felix Leiter right before detonation. He doesn’t really even defeat Goldfinger, but rather Auric seals his own fate during his brief fight with Bond, by blowing a bullet hole through a window in his airplane and being sucked out.
Throughout this third 007 movie, James Bond is a passive observer and the day is saved primarily through happenstance, convenience, and the work of his allies. It’s convenient that Pussy Galore is willing to switch sides after a single (literal) role in the hay with Bond. But was Bond really willing to bet the lives of tens of thousands on his charms? It’s convenient that the CIA is able to break into the sealed Fort Knox vault and dismantle the bomb, but what was Bond going to do if the CIA hadn’t rode to the rescue? Sure the fiendish plot is foiled, but James Bond is basically a bystander in his own adventure. Aside from killing Odd Job, James Bond does little or nothing to help prevent the scheme to radiate the gold supply in Fort Knox.
Is the film still fun and exciting? Is the dialogue still witty and the action still entertaining? I suppose so. But the inherent plot flaw, the storyline that basically has your hero sitting by the sidelines as the plot unfolds right next to him, does nothing so much as render James Bond as impotent and recklessly incompetent. This is even worse than the core problem of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Indiana Jones movies. While those films suffer from outcomes that wouldn’t have been altered had Indiana Jones just stayed in bed (ie - the bad guys would have found the fabled item, used it in the wrong way, and doomed themselves just the same), at least Jones can take credit for saving the lives of friends and family along the way (Marion in the first film, his father in the third film, and Marion, his son Mutt, and Professor Oxley in the fourth). Here, not only is James Bond helpless to prevent widespread carnage, his interference actually causes the murders of innocent bystanders. Personally, I prefer James Bond to actually be competent and able to foil the evil plans of various super villains and warlords. But that’s just me.
Despite that disturbing 44% drop from Saturday to Sunday, which caused the final weekend number of Quantum Of Solace to plunge from $71 million to $67 million (and portends long term trouble for the domestic prospects), the worldwide totals are scorching. After about two weeks in worldwide circulation, and five days in the US, the current 007 film has already amassed a worldwide total of $325 million. That’s already #12 worldwide for the 2008 year. Oh, and in twelve days, it’s shattered the worldwide totals of The Bourne Identity ($214 million) and The Bourne Supremacy ($289 million), and the $443 million worldwide total for The Bourne Ultimatum is within striking distance by the beginning of the Thanksgiving holiday.
Let’s examine the worldwide totals of the most recent Bond films (GoldenEye to Casino Royale), which are all the highest grossing in the series incidentally -
#1 - Casino Royale - $595 million ($168 million domestic)
#2 - Die Another Day - $432 million ($161 million domestic)
#3 - The World Is Not Enough - $362 million ($127 million domestic)
#4 - GoldenEye - $352 million ($107 million domestic)
#5 - Tomorrow Never Dies - $334 million ($126 million domestic)
So, as you can see, by the beginning of said Thanksgiving holiday, Quantum Of Solace will be the second highest grossing 007 film of all time. How quickly it will pass Casino Royale is open to debate, but it should easily happen well before Christmas. It’s also likely to end up #2 worldwide for 2008, probably surpassing the $786 million of Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Nice work, Mr. Bond.
Ah, home safe and sound in the comfort of my home. Away from the masses of partying people in the French Quarter, many of whom were in New Orleans for the 2nd Annual Big Easy Shorts Festival. By my count there were just over 35 short films over the 2 days of the festival and before going any further, I have a rather rude admission to make. The only program of shorts I saw was the one where my film “Drag King” was playing. I know, I know…I’m awful. I even had a discussion at the opening night party with festival co-directors Daniel and Laura Martone about how rude some filmmakers are who only see their film and skip everything else. Then, I did it. Complete douche-baggery on my end, and I’m very sorry to them and the other filmmakers.
To tell you the truth I feel bad not just because I missed some great stuff but also because I didn’t get to hang out more with Daniel and Laura who are two people very passionate about films, especially short ones. They also run the Beverly Hills Shorts Festival and when I realized this before I left, I braced myself for some uptight faux-arty types who are programming a fest to please themselves and their peers. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Laura and Daniel are totally cool, down to earth people and all the volunteers and programmers they had working for them couldn’t have been kinder, warmer or more real.
I would be lying if I said I didn’t have a flipping fantastic time in New Orleans, because I did. But I feel bad because every single person I met who was attending the festival with a film or just as a spectator was really great. For instance, at the kick-ass opening night party, I started discussing microbrews with one of the festival attendees. He asked if I had ever tried this really potent local brew. When I said “no, but it sounds killer” I had barely finished my sentence when he was out the door and back with a cup of the beer from down the street. In New Orleans, you can get drinks “to go” and bring them anywhere. Which is awesome as was the beer and the effort to get it for me. It also proved quite surreal for myself and filmmaking partner John Beck who hit N’awlins like two sailors on weekend pass.
Our screening was at 5:30 Saturday (I had been there since late Thursday) at the Canal Street Cinema which is on the top floor of a fairly high scale shopping mall. The Big Easy Shorts Festival had booked a screening room for the weekend so many filmmakers were truly seeing their films on a big screen for the first time. Daniel and Laura even managed to get a $500,000 projector donated for the festival! Very cool. So being the terrible festival goers we are, John and I rushed to the theater at 5:15, “to-go” cup of beer in hand as we strode through the makeup section entrance of Saks 5th Avenue. I’m sure the makeup gals there have seen worse, but I know I’ve never seen two half drunk guys with big plastic cups of flat beer rushing through a Saks 5th Avenue. Pretty awesome.
As we made it to the theater Daniel and Laura were literally glowing. The documentary shorts screening was sold out! Sold out! Many festivals take several years to build up enough of a following to sell out a theater and this festival did it one screening into their second year! Pretty awesome. So like typical drunken creeps, we picked out a spot on the floor and hunkered down for the program.
I honestly liked all the films that were shown and the festival managed to put together a nice slate of fun docs as well as interesting, more informative docs. There were two really interesting shorts about the New Orleans jazz scene and another about New Orleans street performers. Also in the program was a short about a female wrestler from the late 1950’s and another one I’ll get to in a minute plus “Drag King.” A really nice variety.
When the lights came up, one doc short had clearly owned the night and that was Ray Owl’s hilariously funny short “The Biggest Little Shrimp in Town.” In it, a guy with no experience whatsoever in the shrimping business buys a few hundred pounds of frozen extra-large shrimp that he plans to sell in the street and make a killing. As poorly laid out plans go, the whole thing fizzles and we were rolling in the aisles by the time the film finished. As the lights came up, John and I stumbled down for the Q&A only to see the star of the doc and his director decked out in pimp clothes and white shrimping boots! Classic! Needless to say they stole the show as well as the audience award for best doc as well as all-around audience award. These guys deserved it as they brought the house down and brought a big crowd.
After the Q&A the shrimp guys, Ray and Doug, invited us to a party down the street. Never ones to pass up a party, John and I agreed. We got to the place a little early and heard a commotion coming down the street and as we strained to see what it was, we saw the shrimp guys had managed to get a huge crew of friends and a small band to march them to the party! Kick-ass! The party was a blast and from there on out, it was lost weekend, Don Lewis style. I did see the sunrise twice, ate a hot dog that in my mind was served to me by Ignatious Riley, saw Mardi Gras Indians perform, drank way too many beers and made two strippers fall in love with me. At least I think they did. They said they did and my bank account shows I really liked them.
Sunday night I managed to make it over to the Awards Ceremony and it was my immense feeling of guilt for missing much of the festival that got me there. However I couldn’t believe it when they named “Drag King” the programmers choice for best documentary! Totally unexpected! Usually “important” and “serious” docs win these things! For once, we pulled one out. We got a nice certificate and an even nicer steadicam! Awesome! After that, it was off towards Frenchman street for a last night of camaraderie and merriment with the Big Easy Shorts Festival folks at a very cool local jazz haunt. Again, everyone was so cool and nice and I can’t wait to make something new so we can get a chance to come back to this festival. Mark your calendars folks, next year…it’s on!
I’m not the hugest Van Damme fan – actually, I don’t think I ever was a fan at all – but I do find it amusing that his career has received a boost from a higher brow audience on the festival circuit with this latest film in which he kinda pokes fun at himself. The same plan didn’t really pan out for Pauly Shore, but then his “Pauly Shore is Dead” was total horse’s shit. “JCVD” looks like it has a lot more class , it looks like a real movie and not just a pitiful cry for help and the festival crowds have approved.
And now that “JCVD” has begun its limited theatrical trek across the U.S., we can see what the REAL Van Damme fans have to say about his latest flick and their reaction, thus far, has been rather positive. So it appears that all of the excitement this film has built over the past few months -both from festival word of mouth and a popular online trailer – wasn’t just a bunch of hot air. It’s a strange world we live in.
Ok, now that’s a trailer. The scope seems to be vast and/or epic and it’s obvious where that $150 million went. Aside from the silly first moments of both spots (the already infamous ‘young Kirk hot-rodding’ clip), this is an uncommonly exciting preview. The film seems to promise an obscenely epic big-budget science fiction adventure, regardless of your feelings on the Star Trek cannon. It may not be smart, and some of the dialogue may be a little on the nose, but the thing looks like buckets of gee-whiz fun. I still think that the release date is poison, but Paramount may luck out and make their money back as this looks like lots of big-budget fun.
Did I say ‘big’ twice? Well the whole thing just reeks of scale (the half-finished Enterprise, the vastness of the space battles, the sheer number of ships in one shot), more so than any tent-poler since Return Of The King. Of course, if Paramount can convince America that summer really starts on May 8th (Wolverine who?), then they can avoid the second-film-of summer death curse. As it is, I’d imagine this will be the most downloaded trailer on the internet at least until Transformers 2 or Avatar tosses a clip our way.
While I’ve previously criticized decisions regarding this film (the budget, the release date), Paramount is batting 1.000 so far in their PR campaign with this preview, the initial release of photos and last month’s Entertainment Weekly article. The only thing missing in the teaser is that gorgeous ’space - the final frontier’ music that should have closed out the preview (what is the name of that music cut anyway?). I could carp on the minor details (the hyper editing, the fact that the only clips shown of women involve either taking off their shirts or being imperiled), but I’d be nitpicking. Frankly, I haven’t been this impressed by an initial teaser since the first full preview for The Dark Knight back in mid-December of 2007. This is a thrown gauntlet, a line in the sand, a declaration for Star Trek be taken seriously against Transformers 2 and Harry Potter 6 in summer 2009. I’m officially intrigued.
